BigBallinStalin wrote:As crispybits already hints at, the Creation-scientists could not supply their services at prices similar to the prices supplied by physicists, biologists, and other physical scientists. Why? Because the physical scientists are in a completely different market which requires a different set of knowledge and skills.

Yes, but the major "market" for basic biology and geology type research is the public, government and university funding, because there is little direct, immediately apparent profit to be found.

Combatting ideas that will force major change in business practices, particularly global warming and oil, but also some other issues (many land uses are "stifled" by the endangered species act, for example) has absolute and definite profit value.

BigBallinStalin wrote:In other words, if the creationist cannot supply such a price, then obviously he lacks the knowledge and skills that are relevant to that particular science.

Irrelevant. They are creating a new science, training up a new generation that is ignorant of the fact that they have been duped with lies.

Anyone posting here may well be a troll, but there are plenty of real people out there who actually believe that they know the truth and science is basically wrong, not to be trusted. THAT is the goal of, not Dr Morris himself (he is a "true believer") -- have a generation or two trained up and convinced to distrust basic science and the "scientific establishment" (even though its much less homogeneous than they wish to believe).

BigBallinStalin wrote:Therefore, should the creationists' arguments and articles be taken seriously by the science-minded community?

We ignore them to our perile. This belief system has been growing and spreading and is currently causing headaches all over. Just the fact that every state is facing repeated challenges to textbook approval, has to pay for repeated court battles.. its one thing to fight legitimate debates, something else to be forced to waste time on the above type garbage.. or actually even more slick stuff.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Therefore, should the creationists' arguments and articles be taken seriously by the science-minded community?

We ignore them to our perile. This belief system has been growing and spreading and is currently causing headaches all over. Just the fact that every state is facing repeated challenges to textbook approval, has to pay for repeated court battles.. its one thing to fight legitimate debates, something else to be forced to waste time on the above type garbage.. or actually even more slick stuff.[/quote]

To the best of my knowledge these repeated legal battles are only happening in the US,does anyone have an answer as to why this should be happening only in one modern,developed democracy and not in the rest?

BigBallinStalin wrote:Therefore, should the creationists' arguments and articles be taken seriously by the science-minded community?

We ignore them to our perile. This belief system has been growing and spreading and is currently causing headaches all over. Just the fact that every state is facing repeated challenges to textbook approval, has to pay for repeated court battles.. its one thing to fight legitimate debates, something else to be forced to waste time on the above type garbage.. or actually even more slick stuff.

To the best of my knowledge these repeated legal battles are only happening in the US,does anyone have an answer as to why this should be happening only in one modern,developed democracy and not in the rest?[/quote]

Easy, we have a lot more people who are religious to the point of zealotry than most other first world countries. Anything that is construed as going against some facet of that religion is going to be fought against tooth and nail.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Therefore, should the creationists' arguments and articles be taken seriously by the science-minded community?

We ignore them to our perile. This belief system has been growing and spreading and is currently causing headaches all over. Just the fact that every state is facing repeated challenges to textbook approval, has to pay for repeated court battles.. its one thing to fight legitimate debates, something else to be forced to waste time on the above type garbage.. or actually even more slick stuff.

To the best of my knowledge these repeated legal battles are only happening in the US,does anyone have an answer as to why this should be happening only in one modern,developed democracy and not in the rest?

Easy, we have a lot more people who are religious to the point of zealotry than most other first world countries. Anything that is construed as going against some facet of that religion is going to be fought against tooth and nail.[/quote]

just look at how many times obama had to make reference to god in his speach the other day... dang masons.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Therefore, should the creationists' arguments and articles be taken seriously by the science-minded community?

We ignore them to our perile. This belief system has been growing and spreading and is currently causing headaches all over. Just the fact that every state is facing repeated challenges to textbook approval, has to pay for repeated court battles.. its one thing to fight legitimate debates, something else to be forced to waste time on the above type garbage.. or actually even more slick stuff.

To the best of my knowledge these repeated legal battles are only happening in the US,does anyone have an answer as to why this should be happening only in one modern,developed democracy and not in the rest?

Easy, we have a lot more people who are religious to the point of zealotry than most other first world countries. Anything that is construed as going against some facet of that religion is going to be fought against tooth and nail.[/quote]

I can sort of understand why this would be true of underdeveloped countries,I guess what intrigues me is why do you have so many religious zealots in a country that is so advanced in many other areas?Can anyone explain this paradox?

The founding fathers of the nation were all masons. To become mason, you need to believe in (a) god. When they refer to god it's technically any god, even if the nation is traditionally protestant. The constitution has this religious orientation, so does the role of president (god help me please god bless america and all that crap). You basically can't become president if you are atheist in the eyes of the public.. Also america is very liberal towards any so called "religion" and extremists. I guess scientology, mormons ect have very influencial lobbies. you end up with the possibility of learning creationism in public schools for parents who ask for it..

Last edited by betiko on Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

Frigidus wrote:Easy, we have a lot more people who are religious to the point of zealotry than most other first world countries. Anything that is construed as going against some facet of that religion is going to be fought against tooth and nail.

I can sort of understand why this would be true of underdeveloped countries,I guess what intrigues me is why do you have so many religious zealots in a country that is so advanced in many other areas?Can anyone explain this paradox?

I think because the churches were never targetted in any of America's political upheavals. In most of the developed countries, there was a revolution at some point where the churches supported the old order and were badly mauled as a result. The French Revolution is the most obvious example, but less blatant examples can be found for all the others. In Japan there was a wave of secularization that accompanied the end of the Shogunate. In England there was a series of steps that began with Henry VIII's divorce, continued through various changes of reign and the Civil War, and finally culminated in the Glorious Revolution, each step in that convoluted history incrementally undermining the powers of the churches. In most of Europe, there were the Revolutions of 1830, successful to a greater or lesser degree in Italy, Germany, France, Belgium, Poland, Austria, and Greece, and all of them undermining the established order which included the official churches.

In America, religion was not an issue in either the Revolution or the Civil War. Separation of Church and State has insulated the churches from the anti-clericalism that swept Europe and Japan at various times. Americans, despite a very admirable history of distrusting governments and other elites, have never extended that mistrust to religion. Of course, now that religion in America has gotten politically organised, all that will change. I expect within the next two or three generation there will be an anticlerical revolution in the U.S. Unfortunately, most of us will be dead by then and won't care.

Frigidus wrote:Easy, we have a lot more people who are religious to the point of zealotry than most other first world countries. Anything that is construed as going against some facet of that religion is going to be fought against tooth and nail.

I can sort of understand why this would be true of underdeveloped countries,I guess what intrigues me is why do you have so many religious zealots in a country that is so advanced in many other areas?Can anyone explain this paradox?

I think because the churches were never targetted in any of America's political upheavals. In most of the developed countries, there was a revolution at some point where the churches supported the old order and were badly mauled as a result. The French Revolution is the most obvious example, but less blatant examples can be found for all the others. In Japan there was a wave of secularization that accompanied the end of the Shogunate. In England there was a series of steps that began with Henry VIII's divorce, continued through various changes of reign and the Civil War, and finally culminated in the Glorious Revolution, each step in that convoluted history incrementally undermining the powers of the churches. In most of Europe, there were the Revolutions of 1830, successful to a greater or lesser degree in Italy, Germany, France, Belgium, Poland, Austria, and Greece, and all of them undermining the established order which included the official churches.

In America, religion was not an issue in either the Revolution or the Civil War. Separation of Church and State has insulated the churches from the anti-clericalism that swept Europe and Japan at various times. Americans, despite a very admirable history of distrusting governments and other elites, have never extended that mistrust to religion. Of course, now that religion in America has gotten politically organised, all that will change. I expect within the next two or three generation there will be an anticlerical revolution in the U.S. Unfortunately, most of us will be dead by then and won't care.

Frigidus wrote:Easy, we have a lot more people who are religious to the point of zealotry than most other first world countries. Anything that is construed as going against some facet of that religion is going to be fought against tooth and nail.

I can sort of understand why this would be true of underdeveloped countries,I guess what intrigues me is why do you have so many religious zealots in a country that is so advanced in many other areas?Can anyone explain this paradox?

I think because the churches were never targetted in any of America's political upheavals. In most of the developed countries, there was a revolution at some point where the churches supported the old order and were badly mauled as a result. The French Revolution is the most obvious example, but less blatant examples can be found for all the others. In Japan there was a wave of secularization that accompanied the end of the Shogunate. In England there was a series of steps that began with Henry VIII's divorce, continued through various changes of reign and the Civil War, and finally culminated in the Glorious Revolution, each step in that convoluted history incrementally undermining the powers of the churches. In most of Europe, there were the Revolutions of 1830, successful to a greater or lesser degree in Italy, Germany, France, Belgium, Poland, Austria, and Greece, and all of them undermining the established order which included the official churches.

In America, religion was not an issue in either the Revolution or the Civil War. Separation of Church and State has insulated the churches from the anti-clericalism that swept Europe and Japan at various times. Americans, despite a very admirable history of distrusting governments and other elites, have never extended that mistrust to religion. Of course, now that religion in America has gotten politically organised, all that will change. I expect within the next two or three generation there will be an anticlerical revolution in the U.S. Unfortunately, most of us will be dead by then and won't care.

Thanks,very interesting reply.I wonder if the information age will speed up the process of change you predict,seperate development is difficult in our shrinking world.I really think the internet is a doing great deal to change attitudes in the US.

I believe that religions are getting more and more political because the politics of this government is slowly strangling the rights of religions.

What happens is that you have a few religious nuts in Waco Texas and suddenly all religions are suspects. I did a search for persecutions in America and found this little interesting article about a Chaplain who ministers to police and their families but is no longer allowed to invoke the name of Jesus in prayer on government property.

Most would say, "What's the big deal?" But if you believe that Jesus is the Son of God then it is a big deal. If you are Muslim and told that you can not speak the name of Allah, then it is a big deal.

For quite some time now even home churches have been targeted in several states of this nation of ours. People told that they can not get together in private homes and read the Bible of sing Christian songs because they are not a church and have no license or insurance to cover the number of People that get together. But if the same number of people get together to have a party, get drunk and then drive home all drunk, then there is no issue of not having appropriate insurance or being licensed to have a party.

This nation was founded on the premise that you are free to worship who or what you will. If your religion requires you to sacrifice chickens then so be it so long as you observe the correct laws of sanitation. But Believers in Jesus wanting to get together and sing praises to His name??? First check what state you live in and what the laws are there or you could end up in jail for that.

It does not have to start big. All big issues start out small and grow. So perhaps that religions are getting into politics is because the politics are already getting into religions.

To sum up, what is needed to refute evolution, or any other scientific theory intelligently is evidence.

When it comes to evolution and young earth creationism the failure is on several fronts.#1. Arguing that "there is God" ergo no evolution.This argument TRULY just shows how ignorant you are of what people actually think about evolution. The primary thinking in the world is that God created all, and that evolution was one of the processes God used. Disagreement rages over whether God is actually directing the whole thing, like a pupper or just set up processes or some other combination, but.. let's be clear. MOST EVOLUTIONISTS ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE IN GOD.

So, if you start by arguing "I can prove God"... forget it! You are just wasting your time.

Besides that, anyone claiming to be able to scientifically prove God exists doesn't understand scientific proofs. As much as I firmly and completely believe God is real, exists ... and feel, on a very personnal level that I do have proof of it, I will not say it is scientific proof or proof that I can even truly show someone else irrefutably. Unless you are willing to understand that, then your ability to understand science is impeded to the point you just plain won't...and trying to talk science under those circumstances will get you laughed at and worse.

The theory of evolution concerns how we got from earlier life types to the current flora and fauna we see around us today.. NOTHING else.

Talk about "cosmic evolution" or other types of "evolution" have no more to do with the theory of Evolution than talk of how any idea evolves relates to Evolution theory.

Saying "abiogenesis" is not possible does nothing to further your argumentsThe fact is that Genesis describes abiogenesis. The biological bit about life coming from life, like most scientific statements means that life begets life. I means that on Earth, today, higher life forms don't arise from nothing .... yet. (cloning and so forth may change that),

BUT.. even though Pastuer or whomever may have stated that as a firm and absolute fact, it never really was. When folks discovered viruses, the whole question came up for discussion again, as did it when some basic proteins were discovered... as it did when some genetic discoveries Neoteny and so forth have already mentioned (and know far more about than I, so I will leave them to that and just mention they exist).

AT any rate, the point is that we have life here on Earth. The life that existed earlier differed, greatly, from what we see today. Evolution is a good possibility for how that came to be. This process might have begun with one cell.. or many. It might have begun with an asteroid spreading living material on Earth or... God. Who knows? The Bible says "God", gives a general order (which, by-the-way closely matches evolutionary ideas), but says nothing of how. Even the time frame is questionable.

2. Any phrase that begins "its just illogical that.." or, worse "its just not probable..." Many, MANY things in science seem utterly improbable, have even been considered impossible by many .. up until they were proven true.

The bit about Columbus proving the Earth is round is a bit overstated, a lot of people in his time and long before believed or even knew that the Earth was round (not a ball perhaps, but round). However, the velliger larvae used to be thaught a parasite of crab, but is really its progeny. Ulcers were long thought to be from stress and other external factors and "definitely not" caused by bacteria. Those are just 2 relatively modern examples.

Science requires proof. Creationists have been given opportunity after opportunity. Journals have even stretched their guidelines in a few cases in an attempt to be absolutely sure the ideas were vetted, but nothing good was ever given by the young earth groups. For all the cries of "dsicrimination".. almost nothing (I would say "nothing", but there could be one or two real research articles in that whole mess somewhere) put forward by the Institute for Creation Research meets the standards of scientific research, never mind providing data that actually refutes evolution. The data does not even support their own theories in many cases!

Oh.. I am happy to give you examples, but they are so many that its better if you point to the ones you think are most valid. Then I can show you why those are not. You have to do more than say "Darwin erred"

Similar to the "God" argument, modern scientists are well aware that Darwin got a lot of things wrong. In fact, he was not even the first or only person in his time to think along those lines. He was the first to publish in concrete form what we have come to call the theory of evolution, though it really is not one theory, but an overall concept that is the basis for many, many smaller theories.

The overall concept is that living creatures change by generation, over time and can eventually become new species. The details are that x species became y and how that might have happened.Focusing on a few areas where fraud or errors really did happen proves nothingErrors happen in science. Science continually moves, is made up of the work of millions of idividuals. Some of those individuals make mistakes, some are plain criminals/frauds. Overall, there are procedures and processes that help ensure errors ARE found, even if not right away. Ironically, that you can so readily point to these examples is proof that the process does work, not that it fails. A failure woud not discover errors or admit mistakes.

And, well.. I have yet to see ICR admit to any real major mistakes, even as they revise and revise their rhetoric. Just because someone calls themselves a scientist doesn't mean they are a scientist, never mind an expert in evolution, biology, geology or any field even remotely related to evolutionIn one sense, anyone who studies anything at all can call themselves a scientist. More specifically, they need to use the scientific process which means forming a hypothesis and then collecting evidence to disprove the hypothesis. Note that I used the term "disprove" rather than "prove". It is almost always impossible to actually prove much of anything. Generally, you disprove alternatives.. and then anything left is a "possible".

In the case of evolution, a LOT of possibles have already been eliminated. For example, we know for sure that people did not evolve from giraffes and giraffes did not sprout wings.

A LOT of the "experts" and published "scientists" found in the IRC documentation, in most young earth argumentation,have expertise that lies well outside any field remotely related to evolution or no expertose at all. A common citation will go something like "Joe smoe, scientist with the government... or even "Joe Smoe, well known scientist". Then you google the name and you find that Joe Smoe is "known" ONLY in creationist circles, has been very widely decried by true scientists and often is something like a physical therapist claiming expertise in stellar astronomy". Ignoring evidence and claiming that every scientific study is fraudulant and "just wrong" is something done only by non-scientists.Scientists certainly disagree. Within the field of evolution you will find large disagreements. BUT -- they are specific. Only young earthers think that saying "this study of horse skulls is wrong" means they get to decide that every article published regarding evolution is wrong.

Science criticism needs a scientific basis, not just opinion and suppositionThis ties closely with the above. Its fine to say "I disagree". The problem with so much young earth or anti-evolutionist "argument" is that it substitutes ideas for facts.

For example, I remember an article about the Ceolocant that denies it is any kind of example of a transition in evolution because the Ceolocanth is "just a fish". It IS a fish.. and it is a living example of the group we call "lobed fin" fish... which is considered to be an evolutionary cross point, aka a transition species.

STOP with the ridiculous and utterly inane continued claims regarding transition speciesThe idea that, basically, only something like a giraffe sprouting wings could possibly be considered a transition species ONLY makes sense to someone who has no real knowledge of evolution. Why would anyone think such a think is necessary?

The process of going from simple life forms to more complex is one of moving from something like lamprety to something like sharks and fish, of dinosaurs perhaps becoming birds and perhaps lizards, not apes turning into birds. Making claims about what "should be" is a child's game, not an argument with meaning in science. Science looks at what IS.. and what is not.In among that is a whole range of "might be". Most things are in the "might be".. though giraffes having sprouted wings is certainly not in that group. (dinosaurs becoming birds is, though it is an idea gaining a lot of credibility and evidence)

The second law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with evolutionIF you think it does, you have not studied either the second law, the difference between closed and open systems (Earth is open), the impact of energy inputs (ie the sun), or evolution.

Simlarly, just forget this idea about "loss of information" versus "gain of information" in genes.A very creative idea, but nothing to do with reality. Scientists may be happy to discuss, over beer all kinds of things, but they don't confuse it with research. Whatever the latest anit-evolutionist idea about why "evolution cannot happen", it would help your cause a great deal if you just stuck with what IS, instead of trying to convince everyone that this or that cannot be... particularly when what you are claiming "cannot be" is what has happened! We HAVE very different life today from in the past. This, alone is proof that something like evolution, if not evolution as we understand it today, happened. The ONLY people who see a difference between "micro" evolution and "macro" evolution are those trying to claim evolution did not happen.Really and truly, this whole idea was concocted because the initial claims made by Dr Morris and his ilk that life as we see it just popped onto Earth without change, (dinosaurs were fictional inventions by misguided or evil scientists -- sometimes considered plants by Satan) simply did not stand up to any kind of serious observation. This concept has changed and expanded until what is included with microevolution already looks a LOT like what most scientists call "evolution". At this rate, you will soon be just arguing for name change to the same theory, as a face-saving measure. To understand evolution.. and its generally a good idea to understand what you claim to refute... you need to look at evolution sites, not IRC or other evolution denier sites. As you show pretty clearly, evolution deniers depend heavily upon distorting what evolutionary theory puts forward. For a group claiming honesty, that is a rather interesting piece of hypocrisy!

I may have missed a point or two, but I think I hit on most of the biggies

Viceroy63 wrote: I did a search for persecutions in America and found this little interesting article about a Chaplain who ministers to police and their families but is no longer allowed to invoke the name of Jesus in prayer on government property. .

This IS because this is a government of ALL people, not just of Christians, particularly not just Christians of one church.

A lot of Protestants would object to some prayers common for Roman Catholic clergy.. and Roman Catholics object to certain basic Protestant modes of doing things.

It might interest you to know, if you bother to really study history as opposed to just mining out a few articles you think might support your ideas.. that it was members of churches who very specfically wanted this seperation of church and state, who were the ones fighting for it.They did so because they want the right to practice their religion the way they see it, and not have any confusion over state supporting one idea or another. For years, general, non-specific Christianity sometimes got a pass, even though we have always had people of other religions who were not happy about this, just because Christian numbers were so many and the Protestant churches, in particular were so powerful. (you think about what it was like to be a Jew in the US in the 1950's, for example -- outside of certain areas like NY city where Jews were prominent in number).

PLAYER57832 wrote:To sum up, what is needed to refute evolution, or any other scientific theory intelligently is evidence. When it comes to evolution and young earth creationism the failure is on several fronts.

#1. Arguing that "there is God" ergo no evolution.This argument TRULY just shows how ignorant you are of what people actually think about evolution. The primary thinking in the world is that God created all, and that evolution was one of the processes God used. Disagreement rages over whether God is actually directing the whole thing, like a pupper or just set up processes or some other combination, but.. let's be clear. MOST EVOLUTIONISTS ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE IN GOD.

So, if you start by arguing "I can prove God"... forget it! You are just wasting your time.

Besides that, anyone claiming to be able to scientifically prove God exists doesn't understand scientific proofs. As much as I firmly and completely believe God is real, exists ... and feel, on a very personnal level that I do have proof of it, I will not say it is scientific proof or proof that I can even truly show someone else irrefutably. Unless you are willing to understand that, then your ability to understand science is impeded to the point you just plain won't...and trying to talk science under those circumstances will get you laughed at and worse.

There is evidence that proves the existence of God. It is logical and flawless evidence but if a person does not want to accept it then they simply don't want to accept it.

If you showed me the skeletal bones of a man and say to me, "this is what is inside of you," and then I say, "Prove it" And you start with the head and show that the head is hard like bone is hard and that the eye socket and the whole shape in general and even the teeth of the skeleton look similar to my own and I say, "NO, your wrong because first of all I have falsies and just because the shape of the skull looks similar and I have a hard head just like the bone is hard but that still does not prove it to me, then the problem is with me not wanting to accept that the skull that you show me is the same thing that is inside of me.

Or if one saw a head, gushing blood, roll by and refuse to accept the fact the the head was just decapitated just then, that is the problem of the person who refuses to accept the evidence of what they see. The fact that we did not see the actual decapitation occur because we were around the corner of the wall does not mean that it did not just happen. And if we go around the corner and see a headless body also gushing out fresh blood from the neck over a chopping block and say, "I refuse to believe it because I did not see it, it could be some other logical explanation." Then the problem is with the person who refuses to accept the evidence because they did not see it.

This is the way that Atheist are. You present them the logical evidence and they don't believe it because they don't want to believe it and then say things like, "anyone claiming to be able to scientifically prove God exists doesn't understand scientific proofs." Yet the Holy Bible states that anyone not able to accept the fact that God exists is a fool. The evidence is simple yet atheism wont accept it because it simply does not want to believe it to be true.

The evidence is that Intelligent Design can only come from an Intelligent Designer. And if we say for now that the Intelligent Designer of Human Life could have been extra terrestrials, then who Designed them when the same criteria applies. Eventually you have to come to the conclusion that the original designer could not have been designed. That you are either the design or the designer. But you can not be both.

"Oh, but Man creates?" One may Argue, but man has yet to create something at par with himself. We may create artificial intelligence and even robotic bodies but never would we be able to create the spirit in man; The soul! So we can only create something inferior to ourselves and never something at our level and we would not even want to. But the Intelligent Designer of humans did so with an aspect of growth. Eternal growth implies an eternal plan for man. And no I am not talking about heaven and hell. But if the designer created us in the first place then he can recreate us even after we die and have disintegrated into dust of the earth in order to fulfill His eternal plans for us. That is what is meant by being God. To do anything and all things despite the logic of the limited mind to understand.

The case for Intelligent Design is very simple. It is even simpler then seeing a blood gushing head roll by and then seeing the headless body laying over a chopping block. It goes like this....

No information creates itself. Information has to be created. DNA is information and this information had to be created because information can not create itself. The odds of that happening is Impossible. If DNA had to be Created then it demands a Creator. Thus God exist because DNA had to be Created. Again I repeat...

DNA HAD TO BE CREATED BECAUSE INFORMATION DOES NOT FORM BY ACCIDENT ON IT'S OWN! THUS THERE IS A CREATOR!

This is scientific evidence! Information can not write itself or put itself together any more than falling snow can produce a snow man all on it's own. This is true whether you choose to accept it or not!

Last edited by Viceroy63 on Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.

PLAYER57832 wrote:To sum up, what is needed to refute evolution, or any other scientific theory intelligently is evidence. When it comes to evolution and young earth creationism the failure is on several fronts.

#1. Arguing that "there is God" ergo no evolution.This argument TRULY just shows how ignorant you are of what people actually think about evolution. The primary thinking in the world is that God created all, and that evolution was one of the processes God used. Disagreement rages over whether God is actually directing the whole thing, like a pupper or just set up processes or some other combination, but.. let's be clear. MOST EVOLUTIONISTS ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE IN GOD.

So, if you start by arguing "I can prove God"... forget it! You are just wasting your time.

Besides that, anyone claiming to be able to scientifically prove God exists doesn't understand scientific proofs. As much as I firmly and completely believe God is real, exists ... and feel, on a very personnal level that I do have proof of it, I will not say it is scientific proof or proof that I can even truly show someone else irrefutably. Unless you are willing to understand that, then your ability to understand science is impeded to the point you just plain won't...and trying to talk science under those circumstances will get you laughed at and worse.

There is evidence that proves the existence of God. It is logical and flawless evidence but if a person does not want to accept it then they simply don't want to accept it.

If you showed me the skeletal bones of a man and say to me, "this is what is inside of you," and then I say, "Prove it" And you start with the head and show that the head is hard like bone is hard and that the eye socket and the whole shape in general and even the teeth of the skeleton look similar to my own and I say, "NO, your wrong because first of all I have falsies and just because the shape of the skull looks similar and I have a hard head just like the bone is hard but that still does not prove it to me, then the problem is with me not wanting to accept that the skull that you show me is the same thing that is inside of me.

Or if one saw a head, gushing blood, roll by and refuse to accept the fact the the head was just decapitated just then, that is the problem of the person who refuses to accept the evidence of what they see. The fact that we did not see the actual decapitation occur because we were around the corner of the wall does not mean that it did not just happen. And if we go around the corner and see a headless body also gushing out fresh blood from the neck over a chopping block and say, "I refuse to believe it because I did not see it, it could be some other logical explanation." Then the problem is with the person who refuses to accept the evidence because they did not see it.

This is the way that Atheist are. You present them the logical evidence and they don't believe it because they don't want to believe it and then say things like, "anyone claiming to be able to scientifically prove God exists doesn't understand scientific proofs." Yet the Holy Bible states that anyone not able to accept the fact that God exists is a fool. The evidence is simple yet atheism wont accept it because it simply does not want to believe it to be true.

The evidence is that Intelligent Design can only come from an Intelligent Designer. And if we say for now that the Intelligent Designer of Human Life could have been extra terrestrials, then who Designed them when the same criteria applies. Eventually you have to come to the conclusion that the original designer could not have been by design. That you are either the design or the designer. But you can not be both.

"Oh, but Man creates?" One may Argue, but man has yet to create something at par with himself. We may create artificial intelligence and even robotic bodies but never would we be able to create the spirit in man; The soul! So we can only create something inferior to ourselves and never something at our level and we would not even want to. But the Intelligent Designer of humans did so with an aspect of growth. Eternal growth implies an eternal plan for man. And no I am not talking about heaven and hell. But if the designer created us in the first place then he can recreate us even after we die and have disintegrated into dust of the earth in order to fulfill His eternal plans for us. That is what is meant by being God. To do anything and all things despite the logic of the limited mind.

The case for Intelligent Design is very simple. It is even simpler then seeing a blood gushing head roll by and then seeing the headless body laying over a chopping block. It goes like this....

No information creates itself. Information has to be created. DNA is information and this information had to be created because information can not create itself. The odds of that happening is Impossible. If DNA had to be Created then it demands a Creator. Thus God exist because DNA had to be Created.

This is scientific evidence! Information can not write itself or put itself together any more than falling snow can produce a snow man all on it's own. This is true whether you choose to accept it or not!

Feel free to present this proof of god(s) that every human in the history of the world has failed to produce. I can't speak for everyone, but I would immediately cease to be an athiest if evidence was presented to me. I'm more interested in the truth than a confirmation of my beliefs.

In before some half millennium old year old proof that's long been shown to be flawed.

Edit: Oh, shit, I got bored of your tl;dr post and missed your "proof". The ever classic "everything needs a creator" line! Guess my in before was too late. Me oh my, this one hasn't been done before. All right. First, I'm going to need you to demonstrate logically or prove scientifically that nothing can exist without something to create it. Second, you're going to have to explain to me how god(s) are somehow outside of this need for a creator. Alternatively, if you're stating that "information" is the only thing that can not be created without something to create it, you're going to have to start by defining information. Following that, you'll need to explain to me how DNA is information as opposed to physical matter that is chained together in an orderly fashion.

Lets assume there was a creator , where is the proof that said creator is the Deity that some religions worship . Lets take a huge leap and imagine that an Inteligent Designer put together the plans for our planet , where is the proof that he did not get bored with the project some time back and buggered off elsewhere ?

PLAYER57832 wrote:To sum up, what is needed to refute evolution, or any other scientific theory intelligently is evidence. When it comes to evolution and young earth creationism the failure is on several fronts.

#1. Arguing that "there is God" ergo no evolution.This argument TRULY just shows how ignorant you are of what people actually think about evolution. The primary thinking in the world is that God created all, and that evolution was one of the processes God used. Disagreement rages over whether God is actually directing the whole thing, like a pupper or just set up processes or some other combination, but.. let's be clear. MOST EVOLUTIONISTS ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE IN GOD.

So, if you start by arguing "I can prove God"... forget it! You are just wasting your time.

Besides that, anyone claiming to be able to scientifically prove God exists doesn't understand scientific proofs. As much as I firmly and completely believe God is real, exists ... and feel, on a very personnal level that I do have proof of it, I will not say it is scientific proof or proof that I can even truly show someone else irrefutably. Unless you are willing to understand that, then your ability to understand science is impeded to the point you just plain won't...and trying to talk science under those circumstances will get you laughed at and worse.

There is evidence that proves the existence of God. It is logical and flawless evidence but if a person does not want to accept it then they simply don't want to accept it.

I said scientific evidence.

If you have it, please illuminate us all. You seem to know more than the most intelligent and learned of Biblical scholars. And please note, this comes from a believer.. not someone in opposition to Christianity.

Viceroy63 wrote:If you showed me the skeletal bones of a man and say to me, "this is what is inside of you," and then I say, "Prove it" And you start with the head and show that the head is hard like bone is hard and that the eye socket and the whole shape in general and even the teeth of the skeleton look similar to my own and I say, "NO, your wrong because first of all I have falsies and just because the shape of the skull looks similar and I have a hard head just like the bone is hard but that still does not prove it to me, then the problem is with me not wanting to accept that the skull that you show me is the same thing that is inside of me.

What is this example to prove?

I mean, its a load of garbage. What actually happened is that people saw what the bones looked like in dead people. Leonardo got a lot of his detailed drawings of anatomy by raiding graveyards. Today, doctors rely upon donated bodies for a lot of their training.

That you think the above even comes close to anything science would do shows how little you understand science. Its about observation and proof. Scientists can have all kinds of ideas.. and many disagree with each other, but proof comes from mounting evidence and nothing else.

Viceroy63 wrote:Or if one saw a head, gushing blood, roll by and refuse to accept the fact the the head was just decapitated just then, that is the problem of the person who refuses to accept the evidence of what they see. The fact that we did not see the actual decapitation occur because we were around the corner of the wall does not mean that it did not just happen. And if we go around the corner and see a headless body also gushing out fresh blood from the neck over a chopping block and say, "I refuse to believe it because I did not see it, it could be some other logical explanation." Then the problem is with the person who refuses to accept the evidence because they did not see it.

Another irrelevant example.

Viceroy63 wrote:This is the way that Atheist are. You present them the logical evidence and they don't believe it because they don't want to believe it and then say things like, "anyone claiming to be able to scientifically prove God exists doesn't understand scientific proofs." Yet the Holy Bible states that anyone not able to accept the fact that God exists is a fool. The evidence is simple yet atheism wont accept it because it simply does not want to believe it to be true.

Apparently you have not talked to many atheists... and you still show you know very little of science.

The FACT is that you cannot provide irrefutable proof that God exists. It is a belief. I agree that there is evidence. But evidence and irrefutable proof are not at all the same thing.

And.. evolution very much does have evidence to support it. That is why the theory keeps standing up to criticism. It is why your cronies rely so heavily upon simply saying that scientists are lying.. .becuase they cannot actually refute the data that exists. So, instead they just call everyone else a bunch of liars. The trouble is, unlike proof that God exists, the evidence for evolution is actually available for any who wishes to see it.

Viceroy63 wrote:The evidence is that Intelligent Design can only come from an Intelligent Designer.

What evidence and why?In fact, if you want to get down to it many aspects of human construction are pretty much NOT sensible.. I mean, look at how close our breathing and eating tubes are togetheer. Humans choke very readily... I won't get into the whole litteny, but there are quite a few oddball issues. NOTE.. I am not disputing that there is a designer, I am saying you cannot prove it and the claim that our structure makes a designer evident is just plain false.

Viceroy63 wrote:And if we say for now that the Intelligent Designer of Human Life could have been extra terrestrials, then who Designed them when the same criteria applies. Eventually you have to come to the conclusion that the original designer could not have been by design. That you are either the design or the designer. But you can not be both.

You have not proven anything, nor are your statements even logical.. sorry, but you need to talk more with people who disagree with you, you have been duped into placid thinking.

Viceroy63 wrote:"Oh, but Man creates?" One may Argue, but man has yet to create something at par with himself.

This is of absolutely no relevance in the evolution debate.

No one is saying that humans steer evolution. All humans can do is show that certain things are possible. Humans have bred dogs and livestock into phenomenal diversity in just a short period of time, so it shows that such strong differentiation is very much possible. Note, a lot of dog breeds are just a few hundred years old, yet the diversity we see is so great that many biologists say they approach unique species. After all, a chihuaha cannot readily breed with a Great Dane. Inability to breed is one of the hallmarks of differentiation of species. It is not enough, alone, but that they cannot breed on their own any longer shows that they are beginning to diverge. How, exactly is it so illogical to think that this same process, given the right external forces and criteria, could have happened naturally? How is that outside of the realm of possibility?

Viceroy63 wrote:We may create artificial intelligence and even robotic bodies but never would we be able to create the spirit in man; The soul! So we can only create something inferior to ourselves and never something at our level and we would not even want to.

Now you get into something not addressed at all by evolution. Evolution deals with the biological differentiation of species. The soul, what it even entails is not yet something quantifiable by science. It is a purely theological question.

By-the-way, I absolutely agree that God added something "extra" when it came to humans, most Christians do, but even then.. how he did it is a big question.

Viceroy63 wrote:But the Intelligent Designer of humans did so with an aspect of growth.

This is meaningless. You are stepping outside of what the Bible details and adding your own personal opinions, then claiming that as some kind of proof.. and of what its not even clear. It is utterly irrelevant to evolution, anyway.

Evolution is possible whether there is or is not a designer.

Viceroy63 wrote:Eternal growth implies an eternal plan for man.

Why? You seem to be talking young age stuff here.. Its not Christianity.

Viceroy63 wrote:And no I am not talking about heaven and hell. But if the designer created us in the first place then he can recreate us even after we die and have disintegrated into dust of the earth in order to fulfill His eternal plans for us. That is what is meant by being God. To do anything and all things despite the logic of the limited mind.

If that explanation suits you, fine, but its not specified in the Bible and has absolutely nothing at all to do with evolution.

Viceroy63 wrote:The case for Intelligent Design is very simple. It is even simpler then seeing a blood gushing head roll by and then seeing the headless body laying over a chopping block. It goes like this....

The argument that there is one is simple, sure. The scientific proof of that, the tangible and replicable and irrefutable evidence of that is purely absent. It just doesn't exist, not in the scientific sense.

Viceroy63 wrote:No information creates itself. Information has to be created. DNA is information and this information had to be created because information can not create itself. The odds of that happening is Impossible. If DNA had to be Created then it demands a Creator. Thus God exist because DNA had to be Created.

Nothing is impossible, given infinite time and infinite space.. nothing at all.

Viceroy63 wrote:This is scientific evidence! Information can not write itself or put itself together any more than falling snow can produce a snow man all on it's own. This is true whether you choose to accept it or not!

Theoretically, given infinite time, and a purely random system, a snowman could just form. The reason it doesn't is that we don't have infinite time, and also, snow is not a random process.

Your failure to understand basic concepts like this is why I and others say you need to educate yourself in reality before you launch into any kind of science criticism.. or you, like most young earthers will be laughed at and belittled... because science is real and exists, because facts are true and are not malable to whatever form you wish them to take.

Any arguments and explanations you wish to put forward inevitably fail because they are not backed by evidence, and evolutionary theory, despite your claims to the contrary very much is.

I have told you before I am happy to take any of your assertions and show you why they are wrong or not proof against evolution. So far, your arguments mostly stem around "there is God", therefore evolution is wrong. I could accept that a time or two, but then you keep on with that even after I and several others have made clear that the presence or absence of God is irrelevant to evolution. That is just the beginning of your errors, they descend from there.

PLAYER57832 wrote:To sum up, what is needed to refute evolution, or any other scientific theory intelligently is evidence. When it comes to evolution and young earth creationism the failure is on several fronts.

#1. Arguing that "there is God" ergo no evolution.This argument TRULY just shows how ignorant you are of what people actually think about evolution. The primary thinking in the world is that God created all, and that evolution was one of the processes God used. Disagreement rages over whether God is actually directing the whole thing, like a pupper or just set up processes or some other combination, but.. let's be clear. MOST EVOLUTIONISTS ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE IN GOD.

So, if you start by arguing "I can prove God"... forget it! You are just wasting your time.

Besides that, anyone claiming to be able to scientifically prove God exists doesn't understand scientific proofs. As much as I firmly and completely believe God is real, exists ... and feel, on a very personnal level that I do have proof of it, I will not say it is scientific proof or proof that I can even truly show someone else irrefutably. Unless you are willing to understand that, then your ability to understand science is impeded to the point you just plain won't...and trying to talk science under those circumstances will get you laughed at and worse.

There is evidence that proves the existence of God. It is logical and flawless evidence but if a person does not want to accept it then they simply don't want to accept it.

If you showed me the skeletal bones of a man and say to me, "this is what is inside of you," and then I say, "Prove it" And you start with the head and show that the head is hard like bone is hard and that the eye socket and the whole shape in general and even the teeth of the skeleton look similar to my own and I say, "NO, your wrong because first of all I have falsies and just because the shape of the skull looks similar and I have a hard head just like the bone is hard but that still does not prove it to me, then the problem is with me not wanting to accept that the skull that you show me is the same thing that is inside of me.

Or if one saw a head, gushing blood, roll by and refuse to accept the fact the the head was just decapitated just then, that is the problem of the person who refuses to accept the evidence of what they see. The fact that we did not see the actual decapitation occur because we were around the corner of the wall does not mean that it did not just happen. And if we go around the corner and see a headless body also gushing out fresh blood from the neck over a chopping block and say, "I refuse to believe it because I did not see it, it could be some other logical explanation." Then the problem is with the person who refuses to accept the evidence because they did not see it.

This is the way that Atheist are. You present them the logical evidence and they don't believe it because they don't want to believe it and then say things like, "anyone claiming to be able to scientifically prove God exists doesn't understand scientific proofs." Yet the Holy Bible states that anyone not able to accept the fact that God exists is a fool. The evidence is simple yet atheism wont accept it because it simply does not want to believe it to be true.

The evidence is that Intelligent Design can only come from an Intelligent Designer. And if we say for now that the Intelligent Designer of Human Life could have been extra terrestrials, then who Designed them when the same criteria applies. Eventually you have to come to the conclusion that the original designer could not have been designed. That you are either the design or the designer. But you can not be both.

"Oh, but Man creates?" One may Argue, but man has yet to create something at par with himself. We may create artificial intelligence and even robotic bodies but never would we be able to create the spirit in man; The soul! So we can only create something inferior to ourselves and never something at our level and we would not even want to. But the Intelligent Designer of humans did so with an aspect of growth. Eternal growth implies an eternal plan for man. And no I am not talking about heaven and hell. But if the designer created us in the first place then he can recreate us even after we die and have disintegrated into dust of the earth in order to fulfill His eternal plans for us. That is what is meant by being God. To do anything and all things despite the logic of the limited mind to understand.

The case for Intelligent Design is very simple. It is even simpler then seeing a blood gushing head roll by and then seeing the headless body laying over a chopping block. It goes like this....

No information creates itself. Information has to be created. DNA is information and this information had to be created because information can not create itself. The odds of that happening is Impossible. If DNA had to be Created then it demands a Creator. Thus God exist because DNA had to be Created. Again I repeat...

DNA HAD TO BE CREATED BECAUSE INFORMATION DOES NOT FORM BY ACCIDENT ON IT'S OWN! THUS THERE IS A CREATOR!

This is scientific evidence! Information can not write itself or put itself together any more than falling snow can produce a snow man all on it's own. This is true whether you choose to accept it or not!

Edit: Oh, shit, I got bored of your tl;dr post and missed your "proof". The ever classic "everything needs a creator" line! Guess my in before was too late. Me oh my, this one hasn't been done before. All right. First, I'm going to need you to demonstrate logically or prove scientifically that nothing can exist without something to create it. Second, you're going to have to explain to me how god(s) are somehow outside of this need for a creator. Alternatively, if you're stating that "information" is the only thing that can not be created without something to create it, you're going to have to start by defining information. Following that, you'll need to explain to me how DNA is information as opposed to physical matter that is chained together in an orderly fashion.

If anyone really and truly wants to understand better this question of information, then watch this documentary first and then let me know if it's true or not.

My understanding in God comes from faith. I have yet to see a "proof" of God.

Viceroy63 wrote:The evidence is that Intelligent Design can only come from an Intelligent Designer.

I would like to see such "evidence." Of course we have a whole number of vague terms that are batted around including "intelligent design." But a key element in designs that work (as opposed to designs that are intelligent) is the ability to eliminate those designs that do not work. If there are a plethora of designs, the ones that don't work simply do not work and the ones that work simply continue to work. Thus neither Venus nor Mars supports large scale life while the earth does. The earth wasn't intelligently designed, it was just the lucky one whose parameters worked.

(You could argue that God tweaked the luck factor, but that's completely different from being custom designed to work.)

By the way, if you want to know something that "creates itself," I give you God's wonderful gift to his sons and daughters through Christ ... WINE HAPPENS.

Viceroy63 wrote:DNA HAD TO BE CREATED BECAUSE INFORMATION DOES NOT FORM BY ACCIDENT ON IT'S OWN! THUS THERE IS A CREATOR!

Neither an evidence nor a proof. First of all "you keep using that word (information). I do not think it means what you think it means." Complexity can occur naturally due to chemical and physical processes (and in fact some of them are the result of entropy increases). On an atomic level, hydrogen can "evolve" to carbon. On the molecular level molecules can "evolve" to more complex structures. Eventually you start getting to the level of self replicating RNA and eventually DNA, although this process takes a very very long time.

Getting back to the point, you have presented no "proof" whatsoever. You spout statements like a five year old who has memorized something and wants to impress by repeating it. Unfortunately, those statements are wrong at the very core.